RAJENDRA STORES,JHARSUGUDA vs. ITO, WARD-1, JHARSUGUDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 23/CTK/2020Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 June 2020AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) to explain the stock discrepancies. To render substantial justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for redecision of the penalty.

What were the facts?

During a survey, the assessee was found to have excess and shortage of stock in different commodities, which they could not explain. The Assessing Officer (AO) levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) to explain the discrepancies.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for unexplained stock discrepancies is justified, especially when the assessee failed to appear before the appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: SHRI

For Respondent: Shri S.K.Bandyo Padhyay
Pronounced: 17/0

O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CITA), Sambalpur A), Sambalpur, dated 18.10.2019 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2008-09.

2.

The grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the ld CIT(A) The grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the ld CIT(A) The grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the ld CIT(A) is not justifying in confirming the penalty of Rs.92,213/ not justifying in confirming the penalty of Rs.92,213/- - levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the matter was None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the matter was None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the matter was called for hearing. Hence, I proceed to decide the appeal of the assessee called for hearing. Hence, I proceed to decide the appeal of the assessee called for hearing. Hence, I proceed to decide the appeal of the assessee exparte after exparte after hearing ld D.R. and on the basis of materials available on hearing ld D.R. and on the basis of materials available on record.

P a g e 1 | 3

4.

I have heard ld D.R. and perused the appeal record of the Tribunal. Ld D.R. supported the orders of lower authorities. He submitted that since during the course of survey excess stock as well as shortage of stock in different commodities was found and the assessee could not able to explain the difference, the penalty levied by the AO is justified.

5.

I find that before the ld CIT(A), there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee to explain the excess stock and also the shortage of stock in different commodities found in the course of survey. In view of above and in order to render substantial justice, I feel it just and proper to remit the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A) to redecide the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c). The assessee is also directed to reconcile the difference of excess stock and shortage of stock found during the survey, which was the basis for levying the penalty and furnish the same before the ld CIT(A), who after verification and examination will readjudicate the issue afresh. Hence, the issue is restored to the file of the ld CIT(A).

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →